were the first time is really been called out as a problem. >> humanity's second-largest provider kelleher at times.

the president says his $750 billion of waste and help you annually. bruce broussard recently spoke to the club of cleveland about health care, insurance and medicare. this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> of doctrine and welcome to the city club of cleveland. thank you it shall come the president of city club is. i am delighted to introduce to you today, so when can president effective january 1, ceo of separate ink, and managed health care and insurance provider and administrators serving over 11 million customers in the united states. over the past four years and into the recent election, the issue of health care has been at the center of our nation's great

policy debate and implications beyond the health care industry impacting our larger fiscal policy and important social concerns. we are fortunate to have a test today mr. broussard insights on the industry in developing policy. prior to joining humana 2011, mr. broussard, u.s. oncology. large producers and providers of health care products to major health care institutions. that background, mr. brousard brings a broad perspective on health care issues facing our country. mr. broussard holds his undergraduate degree from texas a&m and an mba from the university of houston. were very much looking forward to your comments today. thanks for being here. [applause] >> thank you.

well, thank you. i really appreciate the opportunity from each one of you. our nation is actually wrestling -- [inaudible] a large amount of debt the united states is facing. i will outline the challenge we face. i'll also show you some transforming health care is one of the ways we can solve that issue. i'll demonstrate how new approaches to integrating the delivery system and how it is already achieving some result outside of the federal government. the health care can harness simplicity, has sustainability, even if the health care system undergoes some significant transformations. first, but to take a moment and talk about ohio and cleveland and how they're addressing some of these large issues here

locally. particularly a recently announced demonstration of integrating care for coverage for the dual eligible. the dual eligible or individuals covered by medicare and medicaid. i don't know if you know this, but dual eligible operation represents 20% of the medicare population today and 31% of the cost. with excited to be part of this program under the strategic partnership with the company in dayton called care stories will be serving beneficiaries in cleveland and akron and youngstown. our partnership with care stories our ability and also appliquéd conditions and their experiences being the leader in serving underprivileged people in health care for the last 23

years. it is this type of partnership designed to integrate care and simplify the health care experience for elderly and disabled individuals doubletalk about in a few moments. their strong commitment to ohio as it is one of the sixth-largest states for the medicare population. our commitment to this is to improve the health, life will be in the comprehensive program of preventative care, care coordination for chronic conditions in the companywide dedication to experience and customer service. in the health care and well-being is our extensive work to help people with lifestyles of the demaret device. we know the root of the country's problem is unhealthy

lifestyles. in humana we are battling this issue in two of the most exciting of them are here in cleveland. eight weeks ago we joined forces with the metropolitan housing authority to build a new multigenerational playground just a few minutes east of here. 150 volunteers from humana the community teamed up to build a place where kids and adults serve. one of 25 and 2011 built across the country as we plan to do many more over the coming years. i'm equally proud to tell you where one of the plan sponsors of the national senior games that will take place in

cleveland in july 2012. the senior games are inspirational and a perfect example of health and well-being as a business leader come in being part of this for many years, i encourage each one of you to get involved in the games or at least make a point to visit. however, right now the work we do, the work each one of you do have a cloud hanging over it. the cloud is our national debt crisis. as you likely know, the u.s. national debt stands at more than $11 trillion that could double in one decade. in addition if you had demanded the government owes from trust funds, art that exceed

$16 trillion at a place that in some context is increasing by the minute the $2 million. humana strongly believes if we do not address our debt issue, our nations economy will suffer in the fiscal crisis. they must come together as a nation to fix the definitive comprehensive bipartisan plans, including progrowth action reform, spending and entitlement. humana is involved in campaign to fix the dead from the bread bowls and simpson and that was a group of state and policy leaders. we believe the campaign will make a difference in pushing congress smartly and responsibly to the comprehensive deal.

and i encourage each one of you to get involved to fix the debt.org. if you take any information not presented to talk to you about it. in the meantime, recognize health care plays a significant role in our nation's spending. controlling health care costs is linked directly to our fiscal security. we are to spend 16% our gdp in the u.s. for this we have lower life expectancy. with higher infant mortality than many developed nations. we are much more obese. we overuse medical services. much more the u.s. has 26.6 mris [inaudible] that compares to 6.8 unit.

chronic illnesses prevalent and is rapidly increasing. 75% of our health care dollars is spent on chronic conditions. the cost of care dairies usually and rationally from hospital to hospital and doctor to doctor. worst of all, waste and fraud in duplication of medical services across the nation's $750 billion a year. you also wonder about the impact of the 2010 affordable care act, also known as health care reform. many major provisions are scheduled to take effect in 2014, just a little more than a year from now. the industries projects designed to improve the delivery system, but also opens access to cover

millions more individuals. still, there's little to address on the major problems and help care for knots cost of rights are too high. clearly something must be done to stabilize the program like medicare, but also to address sustainability across an entire health care system. played a role bleeding and changing our reform. what i want to talk about today is a way to simplify health care is a means of putting a sustainable level. if you look at health care from the point of view of the average person, the system is unbelievably complex. health care decisions often involve many choices and an

overwhelming amount of information. health care bills and statements even finding the right specialist for a facility for the guesswork. we must simplify or purged the health care, attacked the raising costs and other issues for the ordinary americans to understand and act upon. in order to create sustainable health care delivery system. a simple, comprehensive actionable view [inaudible] of health insurers, we are the only ones who have such a view. our old rule was to provide oversight for the cut of her direction uriel signs. our new role is to create an integrated delivery model driven by primary care providers to

users share data to improve outcomes from the lower cost. as marina humana, our model ints the pharmaceutical solution and productivity platforms. in many ways, our motto is an evolution of history's prevalent 20 or 30 years ago. today's simplicity is the key. we believe an integrated delivery model that emphasizes primary care can provide outcome over the cost of care, especially to patients with critical or complex medical needs, including patients in the medicare and medicaid. the concept relies on primary care physicians to coordinate care for patients helping them

navigate the health care system. they can receive the right care at the right place at the right time. like many organizations and industry, technology play such an important role in enabling us to have been. investing today in data analytics capabilities that identify care and support positions of patience and relevant information. one example [inaudible] -- to identify individuals before it occurs. in a month, identifies more than 407 numbers and produces over 800,000 workers. conversion rates for these interactions been a member got

the message in the gap in care was closed. leading to higher quality at lower cost. our vision includes technology that enables practice management , practices that use different electronic health records to exchange information and talk to each other. this allows physicians to share patient information in real-time to further reduce the gap care. we also support health plan members with an array of service and programs designed for making health and addressing chronic position. for members to assessment -- [inaudible] dc-10 to the humana vitality, personalized portal that rewards the number for following a customized exercise and diet and lifestyle plan. essentially we are borrowing

from other industries to create an experience. the more members engage in healthy behavior, the more they will be rewarded, ranging to give kurds. the peer review study of recipients show of works. reducing hospital cost them within 7% cardiovascular disease -- [inaudible] for members and a frequent and ongoing clinical care, our humana care program senior members are an example. the sophisticated predictive models i discuss identify individuals. the humana care uniting a cute and chronic management of the early identification.

humana care develops individuals, self-care goals of behavior through proven techniques, including home visits designed to help seniors age with grace. when people connect with humana care, good things happen. data show the hospitals reduce 32%. emergency room visits reduced by 13% and reignition reduced by 26%. humana carries the window that would help people achieve lifelong well-being. the well-being is for us centered on one-time work. it also embraces financial and personal security, social and community belonging and vocational purpose. producing lower costs and better

quality, better outcomes. our most extensive experience with this holistic integrated model comes from our medicare population. seniors and disabled individuals. unlike original medicare, and merely writes peer services, medicare advantage incorporates integrated systems of care like humana's model. empirical evidence shows humana's fan delivers higher quality of care at lower cost than the original medicare. advantage members receive preventive services any difference of 7.3% and original medicare. set three advantage care members received nearly 15% less than the original medicare was no

reduction in quality. this requirement system would save $31 million a year. results like this does not happen that only happens because of close coronation, cooperation and collaboration. as i mentioned earlier, there's a strong provider component and commitment to sustainable delivery. dark or some hospitals absolutely must remain. they also need to wire themselves into a comprehensive electronic network that includes other providers and payers like us. while the news coverage focuses on health care reform, the air, including both providers is

accelerating the adoption of a delivery system for verity makes a difference. in summary, out-of-control health care costs are a problem. the solution is an integrated care that combines data, technology and simple customer friendly pulpy programs. results will be better quality, better outcome, lower cost and better health care experience. thank you. i think we'll open it up to questions. [applause] >> we are honored today to welcome bruce brousard, president of humana inc. we'll return to her momentarily for the traditional city club questions. please summit your questions now

and remember to be brief and to the point. we welcome all of you here and those listening to 90.3 coming tv cov covered the vtam for many radio stations across the country television broadcast partner. television broadcast were made possible at cleveland state university. i like what cast is supported. closed caption of our program made possible. next friday, december 7th, city club welcomed aaron david miller, vice president of new initiatives and distinguished scholar at the woodrow wilson international center. friday december 14 city club will host dan cronin, president of the io of the national association and homelessness. these visit our website, city club.org for information about

her upcoming foreign or to listen to a podcast of past programs. we'd like to welcome our guests at tables hosted by humana. and medical mutual. thank you for your support. would also like to welcome to today's program students who are joining us from the area high schools. student participation is made possible by generous gift from a charitable trust her today we welcome students from jcpenney school. students, please stand and be reckoned as. [applause] now we would like to return to her speaker for a traditional city club question and answer. we welcome questions for my phone, putting guests. holding the microphone today is kerry miller. we have our first question

please. >> mr. brousard commie talk about complexities facing the average american patient. certainly insurance exchanges in the next year or so will make it more complex. [inaudible] in the drafting of the affordable care act. why didn't humana and the others try to copy the systems of canada and other parts of europe like having a single-payer take care of all medical expenses? 's been a good question. we could probably be here quite some time to answer. from our vantage point, what we see if this is somehow works in

canada and it does not have the care level here in the united states. even in the european countries like the u.k., they too have a one payer system. what happens it is cause long lines and health care is delayed in getting to people in the result is a dear. it is a more simpler model under one roof or an ape in a society that can access care at a single point and village across the platform as a whole. we were governmental sponsored plan because it does not encourage innovation and does

not encourage competitive aspects. we hope you will get better going forward. >> slightly off-topic, [laughter] >> mr. brousard, i want to comment and give you some background first. i am a humana -- prescriber through my wife's retirement. and generally very satisfied with the program, particularly enjoy the silver sneakers relationship to encourage

exercise. i was pleased to mention the senior games in cleveland next year, 2013. i will be participating in spending because authority qualified because you have qualified the year before. my questions are multiple. first i'll cut in medicare advantage plans have a fair amount of criticism during the discussion of the affordable care a does being more expensive and not performing at the level they should have. you maintain that you are doing well. i would like to know the broad spectrum on that? then what just humana is doing, but i'll been doing well. the other piece that goes with that is there is a lot of talk about saving of money from medicare to help fund the affordable care act. part of that i thought was to reduce medicare advantage plans. how is that going to affect things? the third part of the question

is, is there significant broad a statement to show a change in lifestyle has changed hope your cause curve downwards, not just yours. you got a lot of percentages. i'm really looking at the total population. >> you might have to help me out because my memory is bad. i can only do one or two questions. three is a little more complex. you're exactly right. the one complaint with medicare advantage early on was that it is costing the federal government more than traditional medicare. it was really not about the effectiveness of the plan cover another is how effective the plan was. it was really rounder greig that we are paying. they were paying about the medicare rates at the outset. really why they did that in the early part of the decade was around stimulating and getting that going.

what happens it relates to your second question around the savings coming from medicare advantage is, now they begin to move the series to medicare fee-for-service rates coaster coming down and they are not easy not to fund other resources within the medicare advantage program. in fact, some of the regions because it is regional based on how they adjust those rates. now they are actually below medicare rates. we have regions we now offer services in that they are 95% of medicare. but what that is interesting about this gets back to the question you are asking around a single-payer system. it motivates us as an organization to be more innovative than ensuring people are held dear and are being treated better. if medicare advantage, the way it works as we get paid a fixed payment. the beauty of a relationship with individuals like yourself is we have a seven to 10 year

relationship with you comest we want you to be healthy. we want you to be in the right areas because if you are healthy, we do better. so our interests are aligned in that regard. as we see this, would become more innovative. as rates come down, were more innovative on how to be more effective than the cost site. two west that is the picture of the future of health care is when you see medicare advantage -- it might not be called medicare advantage, but the components being paid for quality, being paid for managing the care and being able to help individuals navigate the system, be healthier and at the same time continue to find the right place at the right time to be treated. last question was around healthy behaviors. what you're doing, being that is. a senior eating right. he looked very healthy. it's not only the right thing to do from a health point of view. i did see us take that cookie

in. [laughter] is not only healthy from the standpoint of prolonging some chronic condition, just to give you a statistic. for a 600,000 diabetics that are members. usually two to three chronic conditions. what happens is one condition leads to another condition, which leads to another condition. living a healthy lifestyle prevents that from happening. we also noticed living a healthy lifestyle helps the brain and helps people be more engaged in longer and live a life that's much broader than just being healthy in that regard. vcr dream of lifelong well-being wraps around not only physical health, but mental health. we have studies that demonstrate the ability to have an effect on

care is directly related to your lifestyle in that regard. diabetes is a great example of that and one of the most expensive diseases we face today outside of cancer as a result of bad habits and eating. some is hereditary, but most of it is to be due to our body every day. >> you spoke about the excessive unneeded use of medical services and irrational spending. do you believe that is due to a flaw or problem in the health care system? if so, please explain. >> when insightful question. yes, it is a flaw. there's two aspects of the health care delivery system that has got as to where we are as a society today. one is its fragmented nature. everyone is only caring about their own silos and that creates a consumer experience is very difficult.

the second aspect is we pay for what we do. an individual who owns an imaging device gets paid for every time they turn that imaging device on. so what that does is encourages more and more years as opposed to the outcome in the outcome is a healthier person. so what needs to happen and what's transpired in the private sector is moving payment to not what you do, but it's the effect of what you had on health. so when i talk about medicare, we are not motivated to do more mris. we are motivated to get him to help effectively. the flaw in the system has been we are paying for peace mail, individual services as opposed to the outcome as a whole. >> you mention silos and how we view everything in front ends. how about a silo of the young

people with the affordable care act and so forth, do you think there's an understanding among that generation of all the implications for them including cost? >> no, i really don't. there will be the affordable care act will raise the cost of insurance for younger people. now it's come answer by sabatier. the reason for that is an aspect of the bill called community rating that insurers have to take everybody, no matter if you are sick or healthy. there is also an aspect within the bill that you can only charge the lowest charge for individual and the highest charge you have for an individual. so what that is going to cause his healthy people are going -- their costs are going to go work

in the unhealthy people will stay the same or go down a little bit. in addition, what you have is a lot of unhealthy people that were uninsured coming back into the marketplace. so these confluences are going to cause the rates to go up in that regard. the healthier, younger people are going to pay more. >> i think one of the most compelling points under discussion today was your reliance on primary care physicians. but unfortunately, this.but i read say that we don't have enough now and there's even you are in the pipeline. so what is humana going to do about that? >> well, first, we would love for the federal government and industry to help stimulate more

individuals to come into the primary care profession, so that is one. we have activities going on in that context. more importantly, similar to other industries, how do we get them more if? how do we help them in their day-to-day activities to gain more productivity? there's multiple ways we are working to do that. first is technology. i talked a lot about our ability to proactively stated to identify events before they occur. that helps them be able to separate act of medicine and more proactive medicine and that aspect of it. i also talked about our humana care where we're 5000 people to go to the home for chronic conditions. it takes the pressure of the primary care individual for having to do with that. whether it is reactive or is. the third area is continuing to advance the physician assistants area and being able to leverage

nurses and allow nurses to continue to grow in their profession to be able to be an ally to the physicians come over now physicians can delegate to the nurses in that regard. so technology coming continue to encourage people to go in the profession and at the same time a change in the way we deliver health care as a whole. we are fully aware and we will have a primary care shortage as time progresses unless we do something in those areas. >> thank you. i have a question on part b of medicare. the drug. it is my understanding the government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay, say that i have two drugs that i take. one is on humana drugs, but not the other and my other drug is

on and from, so i have two drugs and only one is allowable by one health care provider. could you address that, please. >> sure, let me address it in different levels. relative to negotiating by the federal government, it really is the negotiation of the federal government to the pharmaceutical companies. today there is a restriction that the federal government can't use the purchasing power to negotiate a boat purchase to the pharmaceutical company. it's not to us as humana. if the firms to aspects of it. when you look at your next question i'll come back to it's really not wrapped around that area. what has happened in part d and president rick clinton referred to this in his speech at the democratic convention is bringing the cost of the

pharmaceuticals found. but is doing is similar to what was i was talking about ability to capitalistic competition. we did a joint venture a few years ago with wal-mart and we introduced a $50 a month drug plan. fifteen dollars a month. the industry thought we were crazy to do this. but what we did its worked with wal-mart's purchasing power, wal-mart's distribution capability and management and our ability to bring solutions to our members have broader product out. it has brought down the price of part d significantly in the industry. d.c. united came out $15 it is not doing with targeted pbs. what that's doing is spurring competition to the market place. you're right, maybe you can't take the anthem plan and humana plan by the time of purchase and

users individually, but the thing about medicare advantage is you can walk the next year and your ability to walk from one planned to another plan motivates me to deliver an experience as best they can on a price that is the most cost-effective fashion. that motivates our theaters and organization to be innovative, to bring joint ventures at wal-mart out. another great example is with wal-mart repotted planned unhealthy foods and if you go into wal-mart and you are humana member and future healthy foods card, you get a discount on buying healthy foods. it is sponsored by humana. this gets back to our belief that if we want to take care of your health as opposed to worrying about the procedures applied, we want to find a way to get you healthier. when you're in some chronic condition can want to find a way to get you back to a lifestyle

that will allow you to be productive. >> over here. hi, i like your idea of personal responsibility. you mentioned at the beginning of your talk about fix the budget. aside from all of us being willing to pay more taxes or having to pay more taxes and staying in shape, i would like you to expand on the idea of what individuals can do to be personally responsible to fix the data. >> well, there's a short-term aspect in a long-term aspect. in the short term, you know, we're going to have to fix it because we postpone this so long and it's going to be a blend of taxes and entitlement changes. for the individual today probably speak their voice. that's the best thing we can do today. they truly believe we have to speak her voice because if we

don't come at some point in time this will come on down on us as a country and have worse consequences. in the long run, for us to be affect it would have to get over the entitlement program. that doesn't mean we take impediments away from people appear to make it much more productive. our goal is an organization is to take the responsibility on by lowering the cost of health care and innovative ways that pushes risk from one organization to another, which is what insurance companies did for so many years. a mr. take it on a per programs that healthy foods, we were able to offer $15 solutions. offer humana care another thing so we can begin to affect the cost of care in that way. as i mentioned in health care today, which is our vocation. i'll speak mostly to god. through $750 billion of waste a

year. can you imagine what $750 billion if we were able to put that back into the system would do for a budget? to me, those are the things we look to the federal government to incentivize people to take responsibility for that. that is where humana is leading to deal with the help the health care system. individually, speak your mind. that's the best thing to do. long-term, double impact the productivity of our entitlement program. >> the affordable care act has some features then it take care organizations and health homes designed to address the same inks are talking about. can you talk about how those work and how they fit with some of the things that humana is doing? >> there are some programs that i mentioned briefly about the demonstration aspects going on.

the federal government identifies the problem of fragmentation in the fee-for-service aspect is being a problem child of our health care delivery system. so how do we take that on in a fragmented industry in that aspect? integrated care is that they're focused on. they pay somebody fixed payments and the individual takes the responsibility for some of health care. that sounds very familiar to medicare advantage. and so, when we look at picture advantage in messy look at humana's capability to manage across the system and being able to help individuals navigate the journey of a fragmented industry, its medicare advantage. that is where we're big believers in items like pc has has a medical home since i on in in that aspect. we believe if the industry would get behind a double help in the the cost of health care and

wrangle the $750 billion out of the industry as a whole. but there's a lot of coordination that needs to be required very and a lot of that have to be put down to decide who's at the front of the bus driving and who was on the bus writing. thus we see the political issues that take place from hospital system to hospital system, physician to physician, et cetera to bring that about. we are big proponents of the idea of a ceos and we want to be enablers in making that happen. but the challenge will be is the political, local affairs that happen and had taken off the ground and that aspect. today we think the medicare advantage program is a great example. we think as time progresses it will take those skills can help other organizations do that. we are doing that today. we have a number of relationships in local markets that we are actually

facilitating some of the back of the habits and organization. >> good afternoon. you are talking about $750 billion of waste in a system. are you including medicare waste? >> yes. >> how much of that is medicare? >> medicare's 40% or 50% of the health care expense, so extrapolate from that. i would say there's a lot more waste and medicare than commercial because the policing method is much harder than a commercial book a business. >> is a 40% of the 750 billion? >> minimum. >> so what is being done about that? and has surpassed organization proposed anything to be done to eliminate waste and medicare?

if you don't tackle that, you could talk forever about theater aspects of ways. >> a few things they are. it's a good general beliefs is is coming from duplicative services, for example. it's coming from fraud and inefficiency relative to what individuals being serviced. so where we are not occurred and manage in one of the for 50-cent love fee-for-service as a result of our programs. so i talk about humana care. let's talk about humana care as an example. our objective is to keep people at home in an environment they feel most comfortable with as opposed to an institution. i mentioned we produce 26% reignition rates. the goal there is to continue to encourage people to stay home and take care of them at home. that helps with the waste in that regard.

ability to not have duplicative type after services are an example of that. someone overlooked in the whole individual house that observation is opposed to the silos. >> can we go back to medicare for a second? where is that waste and what have you seen as an organization, the waste being and how would you suggest that the tackle? >> the waste is across the platform. i think this week there was an article in the times about fraud and activities going on in that area. so fraud is a component of that. but for us as an organization, the largest waste is the lack of integrated care. what that means is duplication of services for people are in the wrong aspect of that. i sigh you shake your head come this way must not be answering your question.

[inaudible] >> thank you for a talk which demonstrates one of the things that i find very encouraging about this affordable care act we are now beginning to embrace. it is exactly the tremendous focus on how it plays out in the marketplace. south korea is setting itself up as a model player in a complex game that involves lots of bargaining, lots of incentives rewarding behavior you want. but i instruct looking back on the last election in the discussion of obamacare that it seems to get a bad rap is government takeover. it really was conceived of as almost the opposite, and efforts to make the private marketplace function that are your rules. i would like to hear from you if

you agree it is in fact a market centered effort it is not a government takeover. >> i think were the dollars are going to be spent, and i mentioned a little bit about the insurance side. it is going to have a cost increase from insurance point of view. more people will be covered as a great aspect of that, but it will cost the american individual more dollars because the risk profile is changing. we probably will not be as active in the individual exchange market as others will be, but you will see an increase in that regard. the reason why i say that is that has not come out in the health care reform debate in the knowledgeable people in the back room for raising them. we are a big believer in 2014

for individuals that are non-medicare will see the rates go up. i think where the reform helped us in the demonstration areas. you don't see a lot of that coming out today. but they really encouraged electronic conductivity through print and electronic medical record to the provider and they encouraged an holistic view of the individual round these things called it, we'll care organizations and medical homes in those things. we think long-term those who have an impact. they may not be calledaccountable cure organizations, but they are the basic code. when you look at it from a taxpayer point of view in the short run, they more look at what is that going to affect from a cost point of view and dollars pushed around in the industry. long-term, there would be a lot of benefits from the electronic point of view and a structural change point of view because

were going to learn a lot about the aspect reduces short-term view in a long-term view. a lot of people are focused on the short-term aspect and the funding required for them. >> i would like you to comment on the exchanges they seem to be somewhat controversial. i do believe our governor has said not know him if he continues that position, to the three federal exchange program in ohio. what is humana's approach to exchanges? you prefer federal run or state run? >> we do believe in the medicaid system closer to the population, i.e. the scene is probably a better way to do it because that's the most appropriate way to get care localized in that aspect. it causes were complications or individuals like myself because my 50 customers as opposed to one customer, but we think it's

better because health care is local and it's not a national business and it can't be exported. it is a local business that has to be local. so our preferences at the state level. our perspective on exchanges as we have a perspective of the four-year run and that's what your governor has the perspective on us to learn a little before you jump in with everything getting wet here. the reason being is so many moving parts are happening here. i mentioned the pricing will change you because you have this ratio you have to stay within. in addition, you are going to bring a lot of people on that traditionally have not been assured and you don't know what their health conditions are and you don't know what that means to the cost of care and you just don't know where that goes. so we have the philosophy of the tape baby steps before we jump

into it and i think this is your >> one issue we have not addressed today is the delicate issue of the disproportionate spending on health care in the last days and weeks of one's life. given the dubious nature of outcomes at that point, what is humana's position in this area? >> i may have bread thrown at me or cookies are sent in. i come out of the cancer business. i was the ceo and chairman on the board of one of the largest cancer companies in the united states and end-of-life is a very active part of our organization as a result of that disease. what i learned in any come in many dialogs with 2000 physicians part of our organization is the end-of-life is best spent any time of of non-treatment. it is a tough decision because

people don't want to give up that hope and promise and doctors are paid to give up where they are not trained to give up. that discussion is a very hard discussion to have on that aspect of it. but it is sent in dublin never come from society in a policy, but over time, having hospice be part of the treatment plan is an important part of that. in our organization, we never encouraged that because that is the right of the physician and the right of the family member in that regard. we do offer services social workers and other relationship that allows them to do with this tough issues in an educated way and resources to help. i think that is where we look at our responsibility is to help them navigate that decision. it's a personal decision and a hard decision about that decision be the family members and provider. we are believers that hospice,

especially in circumstances that is not promising is the right way to do it. so you take it from a cost discussion to quality-of-life discussion. when you make the quality-of-life discussion, the cost discussion will bear out there. >> if i understand your point, it is that integrated care is what is going to lead to efficiencies to eliminate waste and bring down cost of the entire health care system. >> you probably just answer the question you're trying to ask me 50 different times. >> but devil is in the details. who's going to answer these questions to better care is provided or not? in less than someone ago that ensure insurance come in as we had to go to a primary care doctor to get permission to go to a specialist. is it the primary care doctor?

is it the insurance company? and he makes the financial decision because that is really what is going to drive the whole dang. >> great question. i will give you our perspective. our is that the physician is at the center of health care and we believe that the position along with the relationship with the individual is where that decision is made. we don't believe it's a hospital. we don't believe it's a payer or anything like that. we believe it is the physician that makes that decision with the individual. we do have a bias to primary care because we believe primary care sees the overall aspects of it and consulting a specialist in having specialist by their side. we believe primary care has a much more holistic view of the care model than just a specialist in that regard.

specialists are a very important part of the health care delivery system, that used inappropriate -- and. we also believe that some skin in the game by the individual come especially on the commercial side is an important part because if you think about health care today, the individual paying the bill and the individual providing the service in the individual receiving the service or three different groups of people. they have three different interests in mind at some point in time and they are not always aligned. our belief is aligning interest together, having overpowered by individuals in their financial participation and having the physician were incentivized around quality and cost, not just around individual units of work in that regard.

so we look at primary care is an important part in being one of the lead in the care model with a partnership of specialists, but primary care is a center part. we believe payer should be in the background, not the foreground regarding this in a more closer connection between quality and cost of the reimbursement system is important. [applause] >> today at the city club of cleveland, we've been listening to a friday for a featuring bruce broussard, president of humana inc. thank you, mr. broussard. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. this hearing is now adjourned. >> thank you. you did great. [inaudible conversations]

.. passed in 2008 by a majority of six to three, i believe, and they're going to say that is

precedent. >> and what . >> and if they had a voter id. >> talk about -- they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish how deep. they did not say that all of those . >> correct. they talked about indiana. >> let me finish. you misrented what i say. >> no. when i hear the accusations because it implies to me that somehow we have something missing in the brain we are lesser than, you know, -- to follow the laws. what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough. they lesser than. that's what bothers me about a

lot of rhetoric coming from democrat and the left. that we always have too make special -- there has to be a specialness when we deal with minorities because they are too feebleminded. we need to make conventions for them. they can't follow the rules like everybody else. when you treat people like victims, i don't think they want to aspire. >> more with the editor and publish of "conservative black chick.com." we had the exflogs of knowledge in medicine, we have not coordinate the care. and they end up having so many cracks the cracks as are as harmful as the diseases w treating. you have to step back and ask, you know, are we hurting people overall? , i mean, on a global level?

what are we doing sometimes. and of course now we have the institute of medicine report saying 30% of everything we do may not be necessary in health care many? when we step back 30% of all the medication we prescribe. the test we order. the procedures? this is something, i think, which is for the first time really being called out as a problem. >> dysfunction in the u.s. health care industry. dr. marty on what hospitals won't tell you. his late isest "unaccountable." saturday night at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. 71 years ago japanese forces attacked pearl harbor bringing america to world war with. veterans and the families marking anniversary at the world war ii memorial in washington, d.c. this the ceremony includes remarks by the vice chairman of the joint chief.

[sirens] ♪ ♪ ♪ ?eet ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

ladies and gentlemen, will be delivered by lieutenant

colonel. >> our help is in the name of the lord who made help and earth. the souls of the righteous are in the hand of god. those -- be destroyed but the name liveth for ever more. let us pray. almighty god, creator and sustainer, we offer to you endless of thanks thanksgiving and praise today. we reremember a time of great tyranny in our world. we remember world war ii. we also remember those who stood their ground against great tyranny. those who fought here at home and on the battle fronts to ensure that tyranny would not prevail. we thank you that in the hour of

need you gave men and women the strength and resolve to stand no matter the cost. may those brave souls who still remain here with us feel today your hand of favor and strength. for those who remain with us today, receive renewed hope and awareness of our gratitude for their bravery and sacrifice. we ask for your unceasing grace and bountiful blessings on them and their families. lord, we covered your wisdom on life journey and your entiring strength as we forge forward committed to building global you knowty and peace -- unify and peace. amen.

ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. our first speaker today is representing at cohost for today's ceremony for the national park service, mr. robert within super -- super opportunity of the national memorial parks. [applause] good afternoon. on behalf of the national park service, it is my pleasure to welcome you to the world war ii memorial, which is dedicated to the value yent soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines who fought in that war. as a super about to of the national mall and memorial parks, i have the true honor of serving as a custodian of this

memorial. and of ensuring that the story of the brave men and women who fought in world war ii is told to the millions of visitors who come here each year. we are very pleased to partner with the friends of the national world war ii memorial in that effort, and i'd like to thank general for his continued friendship and partnership. we in the national park service share in your mission to ensure that the legacy and sacrifices of world war ii veterans are not forgotten. i particularly like to thank admiral when field for being here today. we appreciate all of your service. an incredible service to our nation, we are honored that you would take time out of your very, very busy schedule. i understand that he just got off a flight just a short time

ago from afghanistan, and i think that's at least a two or three hour flight. but it was important for him to be here today. we're honored and gracious that you are here with us. you know, there's many honors that come with my job. there are none that mean more to me than taking part in ceremonies like this that take the time to recognize the importance of our brave men and women in uniform both today and in the past. to all the members of our armed forces and surgeons who -- veterans who were here. , i'm deeply honored and humbled to spend pearl harbor day with you. but i'd like to especially acknowledge our world war ii veterans two came here today and say welcome to your memorial.

[applause] there is no tribute, no congressmen ration, no honor that can truly match the magnitude and service your sacrifice. you have a nation's thanks and this memorial was conceived and built as a way to express our nation's grad grad constitute to the 16 million men and women who met and defeated the greatest threat that the world has ever seen. more than 400,000 men and women gave their lives in that fight including the more than 2300 who were killed at pearl harbor alone. they are all remembered here on the field of gold stars behind me. this memorial is meant to ensure their sacrifice will be remembered in person. tooty when our children and our grandchildren visit this place,

this memorial, they will learn about what it means and we say that freedom is not free. hopefully it will inspire them to also serve their country. we in the national park service try every day to repay an honor the sacrifice of the men and women who served in world war ii by caring for the wonderful memorial and by educating our visitors about the importance of world war ii in american history. and as the proud son of a world war ii veteran myself, i'm personally honored to be entrusted with its care. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, sir. ladies and gentlemen, it is time it is my honor to 0 introduce the chairman of the board of friends of the national world

war ii memorial. lieutenant general. [applause] >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us as we commemorate the 71st anniversary of the attack on pearl harbor and the beginning of world war ii. we want to welcome our very distinguished guests today admiral sanity sandy. our keynote speaker, we're also honored to have with us general -- a former marine corps. and chairman of the battle of the monument commission who played a major role in helping establish the special monument. [applause] also it's always god to have super superintendent to work together.

a personal honor to have dan hays with us. the director of the film "honor flight" which many of you will be to be see tonight in constitutional hall. and there are many, many other distinguished guests who have come today to help give a special welcome to our honored guests the pearl harbor survivors and all of our world war ii veterans and your families. and very wample welcome to all their veterans and families that are with us. and a special thank you to those serving in our armed forces and their families. what a magnificent job they have done in iraq and are doing in afghanistan. their performance of duty has been magnificent. we can't say enough about those brave men and women, our heroes. we pause today to remember and honor all the men and women who

71 years ago today were safe guarding our nation at pearl harbor, and other military facilities on the island in hawaii. at 7:53 on sunday morning, december 7th. , 1941 without warning a japanese launched a massive air attack against pearl harbor and other military bases on that island. when the attack ended, almost 3,000 americans had lost their lives. a total of 21 ships were demolished. and 188 aircraft were destroyed. most of those aircraft were destroyed before they could become airborne. after the attack, president frack lynn -- franklin roosevelt stated that this day, december 7th is the day which we'll live in infa my. it has.

we gather to remember that attack on pearl harbor and honor those who received the blow of that first strike. and also remember and honor all of those who served in world war ii. it's my pleasure today to represent the friends of the national world war ii memorial. an organization that is dedicated to ensuring that we always remember the greatest jen -- generation, and their service, valor and sacrifice. and all those supported on the home front. to achieve this we work closely and proudly with the national park service and with the department of defense to bring events like this throughout the year and band concerts throughout the summer. this memorial is a very sacred place where we come to visit, to

remember, to reflect, and commemorate the defining moment of world war ii. and to honor those who served both on the battle front and on the home front, and the families that were left behind. this me memorial honors more than the 16 million men and women who served in the arm forces during world war ii. and more than 400,000 of those men and women never rushed home -- returned home. and additional millions that supported the war effort from america's arsenal of democracy and from our farmlands on this home front. the world war ii generation fought the most destructive war in history. they fought that war against great odds, not only did they fight and win that war, and safe

save this nation. they literally saved the world. this nation will never forget our world war ii veterans, all of our veterans and their families, and especially those who gave all their tomorrows. as a 18-year-old or 19-year-old all of your tomorrows is a very high price to pay so that we can live in this strong, free, and beautiful america that we're proud to call home. god bless our world war ii veterans, their families, bless all of our veterans and we pray that god will protect those serving in the armed forces and the families they have to leave behind. god bless america. thank you very much. [applause]

we're privileged to have with us here today members of the united states marine band begin teen who will perform the musical patriotic salute to the veterans. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ [applause] ladies and gentlemen how about another big round of applause for the united states marine band. the brass quintet. [applause] at this time, i would like to

introduce to you the producer, the directer of the film "honor flight" mr. dan hays. [applause] thank you for having me here today. what an honor to be here to remember such an important day in our history. so about three years ago i wandered down the memorial with my video camera, right over there by the atlantic pillar and asked a world war ii veteran a simple question. i said how is your day going? he looked at me with the out most sincerity in his eyes and he said i could die a happy man now that i made this trip. that answer was the beginning of an incredible journey for me.

it served asen inspiration to make a documentary about communities across the country that pulled together send the veterans now in the 80s and 90s on a trip to d.c. to see the memorial. these trips trips are called honor flights as many know it's a non-profit organization that was started by earl morris who is here with us today and jeff miller. that flies world war ii veterans to see the beautiful memorial at no cost to the veteran. they fly from 117 cities from across the country and flown over 100,000 veterans to date. for the past two years, my business partners and i and our team have toll involved the veterans from the awesome stars and types honor flights in milwaukee. it's i hon honor to direct your attention to two world war ii veterans. they are amazing guys and become

my friends. i would like to acknowledge julian and his daughter julie. can you give a waive? there's julian. [applause] julian served on the navy as a cook and also on the burial dispow -- he's a publish poet and took the first trip to washington, d.c., on a honor flight. next i want to tell you about joe. who is a accompanied by his wife. can you say i had, joe? [applause] many of you know joe but you might not know why. a picture was taken of him in 19 hay for the life magazine. it was called the "human skelton" weighing over 90 pounds. he became one of the most iconic images in world war ii after suffering in the nazi camp.

it's only fitting that the 87th birthday of joe is today. [applause] joe and julian's stories have been submitted to bob patrick and the veteran's history project at the library of congress. for years and years researchers can find the interviews and use the stories for the future projects. these men represent the less than 2 million world war ii veterans living today. men and women who fought across the world, to defend and protect not only our country from harm, but something much more fundamental. our freedom. freedom is the big ideal. it's used a lot used in washington, d.c. i sometimes wonder if it lost the potent sei. when joe was liberated. there was out pouk on the cot next to him. he died that soldier died the day after the liberation fobbing -- took place. the wall behind me reminds all

that many paid the ultimate prize. those who made it home hugged their families, returned to work, and hardly ever talked about the war again. this me more yule allowed them to open and share the sometimes. sometimes for the first time ever. on the day he was liberated joe was asked about the experience and he said he learned two things. to pray at the nazi prison camp and every day is a bonus. every day is a bonus living in this country of freedom and opportunity. that's what i have learned in my experience making this film and spend time with the men and women who fought in world world war ii. to paraphrase the chairman of the star and stripes to the veterans here today, we will never ever forget your legacy. we'll never ever forget what you did for this country and our mission through the honor flight networking is to don't share your incredible stories. first to our families and

neighborhoods and communities, and we promise that by visiting the memorial, and seeing our film, children in this country will know the price of freedom and what you did. and tonight we begin to fulfill that promise as we join 2500 people in the dar constitution hall to continue to honor the service of the world war ii veterans veterans with special screening of the "hon honor flight documentary that tells the stories as well as marion and ann the daughter and wife of orville. we will never forget what you for the country. thank you very much for having me today. [applause] it's my privilege to introdisuse the keynote speaker. admiral winnefeld is serving as

a ninth vice chairman of the joint chief of staff and the second highest ranking military office. he graduated from georgia tech and received the commission true the navel rotc program there. he flew the f14 tom cat and taught at the navy's top gunfighter weapon school. admiral winnefeld commanded among many commands the fighter squadron 211, the u.s. s cleveland and the uss enterprise through combat operations in afghanistan immediately following the terrorist attack in september the 11th, 2001. as commander, the uss roosevelt. he lead task forces in operation iraqi freedom. he commanded the united states sixth nato ally joint command in

lisbon. his shore tours include service on the fleet force command jointed forces command, tours on the joint staff including being the j5, aid to the chairman joint chief of staff, and executive assistant to the chairman of navel operations. he commanded the defense command norad before becoming and being selected as vice chairman of the joint chief of staff. admiral win field a highly decorated combat leader. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral sandy winfield. [applause] >> good afternoon, everybody. it's great to see you. thank you are in introduction. mr. vow gal, hays, distinguished

guests, good afternoon. what an honor it is to be with you here today. what an honor it is to stand in front of the wonderful world war ii and pearl harbor veterans. i can tell you that as i was listening to that wonderful rendition of "america the beautiful," it struck from me what a wonderful idea america is. what a wonderful place america is, and all of you fought her her so long ago. and we deeply appreciate what you did for us back in the 1940s. we will never forget. members of the color guard, marine band, friends of national world war ii memorial and member of the national park service. thank you for helping us recognize the important day and some very, very important people. indeed, i offer a very special welcome to all of our world war

ii veterans and their families and to all of our pearl harbor survivors who are here today. many of whom have traveled so far to be here, and we thank those who made that travel possible. nice shoes, by the way. we really appreciate it. we pause this afternoon to remember the tragedy that struck pearl harbor on that now imfamous day 71 years ago. when our nation learned in horror the japanese forces had shattered the peaceful sunday morning killing or wounding over 2400 americans and wrecking a good portion of our pacific forces. indeed the tragedy that marked that morning was an unimaginable event that shocked our nation. but also stirred a quite and peace-loved people to action.

and we honor the bravery and service demonstrated by so many people, so many americans, and people from other countries in that conflict. so it's appropriate that the memorial honoring the service and sacrifices so many in that conflict is our setting for today. the 4,048 gold stars behind me represent the over 400,000 killed or missing in action as a result of world war ii. serving as a wonderful backdrop for the wreath whres lay this afternoon and reminding us that here on this sacred grounds we mark the price of freedom for this country. today our military's involved in another conflict half a world away. as a result of a different surprise attack on american soil

that killed nearly 3,000 of our fellow americans in one day. there were ties between the two events and the wars that followed one of which just as the sefntd uss enterprise was on the way back to part in pearl harbor on december 7th, 1941 and would later launch the first u.s. strikes of the war against japan at the marshall islands. the current uss enterprise was also on the way home on 11th september, 2001. just over three weeks later, she would launch the first strikes against al qaeda and the taliban in afghanistan. now imagine yourself aboard uss enterprise on the night of those first strikes. here's part of what her captain told the crew. aboard imper enterprise.

good evening. the last time america actually went to war to defend against an attack on the homeland was almost exactly sixty years ago. when treacherous enemy conducted a surprise attack on pearl harbor. during that attack, a different enterprise was at sea on the way home and was ultimately in a response to that difficult and bloody task of soundly defeating an enemy. and ever since then when america has gone war it's been to protect freedom, and our vital interest in those of our allies. we are have not had to defend our homelands since december 7, 18941. however on september 11 the our enterprise was at sea on the way home during a treacherous new attack on our country. and tonight the ship named enterprise will be an integral

part of the nation's response. like 1941, this war is a little more personal than defending our vital interests, we're defending our families. now the electricity feeling among that ship's crew had to replicate the feeling fill bid -- felt by so many people in the front row today before their first action in world war ii. i wanted you to know there's a direct connection between your heroism and your service and the heroism and service that our wonderful men and women in uniform who have struck back in this war with the same bravery and perseverance that define your service in world world war ii and is example fied by your present teamed. the men and women who wear the cloth of our nation walk confidently in your footsteps. they look up to you specifically

to you, they live your legacy as members of the next greatest generation, and you should be proud of them. i know, you are. and i know i am. but today we pause to honor you and honor the them of i -- memory of those whom we lost in world to war two and salute those who won the war and paved the way for the nation's prosperity and leadership over the last seven decades, and in this christmas season made "it's a wonderful life" possible for the rest of us here in the audience including myself and my family. and i would say it's made this nation prosperous and it will for a good deal longer in the future than some may actually think. a memorials like this beautiful memorial in which we are having this ceremony, and days of remembrance like this try as we

might, we'll never be able to adequately recognize your service and sacrifice. but we can thank you for what you have done for our nation. we can thank you for your service. we can thank you for being with us today. and we can thank you and your families and your supportive friends for being with you here today. question thank all of you who are gathered here today for your continued support of your nation's military. so god bless our men and women in uniform, and their families, and god bless our united states of america. and thank you so very much for your service. thank you. [applause] thank you very much, sir for the inspiring comments. ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will prepare for the official wrote laying at the freedom wall.

[inaudible]

[inaudible] world war ii veteran.

by representative of the united states army representative of the army donald [inaudible]

today -- on behalf of the united states marine corps.

our sixth wreath today represents the united states navy. -- washington, d.c., department of veterans affairs is representing the navy today. acheaped by julie -- accompanied by julie. -- [inaudible] world war ii veteran served in the pacific as a cook and as grave -- [inaudible] is to -- who was pearl harbor

survivor. [inaudible] representing the united states air force. [inaudible]

>> our wret today renting the united states coast guard. [inaudible] world war ii -- [inaudible]

and the ninth and final wreath is being presented on happen of the -- [inaudible] presented by lieutenant colonel -- and doctor -- [inaudible] united army in 19 15eu6 as 65 as vietnam veteran. he's a veteran of the following combat operation. -- [inaudible] operation desert shield, dessert storm and [inaudible]

ladies and gentlemen, please rise . >> explore the history of and literary culture of new york's capital city al albany this weekend on c-span2. and american history tv on c-span three. tonight on c-span two reagan administration officials recall the negotiation with the soviet union over the intermediate nuclear forces treaty. they talk about the u.s. health care system and later the house transportation committee hearing on high speed rail. on tomorrow's woo journal, u.s. news and world report business correspondent rick newman on the november jobs report. and a discussion about public health in america with national institute of allergy and infect use disease directer and cbc

directer thomas. washington journal begins live each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. chief of staff had to make the plan for the innovation of japan without considering the atomic bomb. it was estimated that the land would cost 700 men with 250,000 -- be at the bko and 500,000 to be named. as harry truman's grandson somebody in the middle. i have to -- i choose to honor both. both the sacrifice and sacrifice of american servicemen fighting their way through the pacific and i have a little girl like? who died as a result of the atomic bombing. it's unimaginable what that must have been like to be close to that to the hype center where

that fire ball originated in the blast and blast was strongest. >> follow him on the journey now hiroshima on american history tv. the president's eldest grandson joins us in washington for the inspiration of the trip at 9:00 p.m. eastern. [bells rings] >> twenty five years ago the u.s. and soviet union signed a treat dwhrai removed thousand of nuclear i missiles from europe. that recount. the discussion was hosted by the american foreign services association. it's an hour and twenty minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> okay. i think we're ready to go. i wouldn't like -- i would like

to invite everyone to take their seat. i would like to wish you a good morning. i'm susan johnson. the president. and i would like to extend a warm welcome to you all. and thank you for coming to this important and special panel discussion and also celebration of the 25th anniversary of the signing of the historic imf treaty. special thanks, of course, go to our panelists, and our moderator ambassadors for sharing their experience and reflectioning surrounding the come flex negotiations that lead to the treaty which was a significant factor in reducing the tension and dangers of the cold war. and i'm sure you know all of these three imminent folk, i would like to say a quick word. ambassador ridgeway was assistant secretary of state for europe and can that da and in her 32 year foreign service career she served as a

ambassador to finland, ambassador to the former german democratic republican and counselor of the department and we're delighted to have her back to talk to us or with us today. ambassador burt, is currently now the managing director where he lead the firm's work in europe since 2011. prior to this, he was the u.s. ambassador to the federal republican of germany from '85 to '89 and before that worked as a state department as assistant secretary of state for european and can nad yain affairs. and before that was the drecker of political military affairs in the department of state. so he along with his colleagues has a long and imminent involvement in the issues. and finally, left side but not

least, ambassador mat lock known to many of us retired foreign service officer. he's been holding a series of academic posts. i'm not going to list them all since '91. during the 35 years in the foreign service he served as ambassador to the soviet union from 1978 to 1991 as special assistant to the president for national security affairs, and senior directer for european and sowf yet affairs on the national security staff from '83 to '86. as ambassador of czech from '81 to '83. i won't go over the imminent and long career in the interest of time. i wanted to give you a brief recap for all three of them. of course, marvin, who is the edward r murrow professor at harvard kennedy school of government, and contributing news analysts for npr and fox

news channel. he's frequently called upon to comment on major issues of the day by many other leading news organizations. and also he's very dear to our heart here because he's frequently served as moderator and done a great job every time. we're happy to have you back thank you so much. let me just go back and say a word about the in-depth knowledge, the skill, the dedication and the perseverance of each of you present today. who worked on the negotiated teams or the process that lead up to it. really did not just bring this treaty to fruition but also reflect the practice of diplomacy at its best. it required, you know, outstanding diplomacy and -- to plan the risk and demands of peace in the opaque security environment of the cold war period, which perhaps most people here remember perhaps

some do not. [laughter] so before turning the program over to marvin, though, i would like to mention that we have a new book that is per innocent to the subject in the adft series "the reagan gorbachev" edited by david t. jones and dedicated to ambassador the late ambassador who was the principle imf treaty negotiate and leader. and copy of the bock are available at the back of the room for those of you who would like to purchase one after wards. without further ado, it's my pleasure to happy holidays and turn the program over omar vitamin. >> thank you. it is a pleasure for me to be asked to come here to moderate a panel. my life has been absorbed bit foreign service far long time. i only worked in the foreign service for a year and a half

1956, '57. in moscow sin that time. since that time covered all of blow different ways. sigh e familiar faces but i see a lot of gray hair. that also suggests to me that most of the people in the room remember that there was a cold war and that there was a soviet union. in 1978, the relatively new leader gorbachev signed and agreement with president reagan that we are in effect celebrating today. the 25th anniversary of the, mf treaty. i learned this morning it has a longer name. the treaty between the u.s.a. and the ussr on the elimination of their intermediate range and shorter range missiles and that were elimination has a lot of clout. up until that point we were

talking about reducing or limiting the dwo. nuclear weapons. and it also strikes me that we were in another era. we were in the cold war. that was obvious to us all. but at that time, not quite so obvious, we were beginning to see signs of the end of the cold war. we didn't e quite recognize it at that time. but for me personally i remember clearly that in the early 1980s there was a sudden eruption of anti-war and antinuclear common concentration -- demonstrations all over western europe. the russians had moved ss20 medium range missile in to eastern europe. they were regarded as a threat. and suddenly everybody was very concerned about the possibility of war. and i became aware of that in a

dramatic way when my boss called me up to new york and said, hey, what the heck is going on in germany? what is going on in europe? how serious is this? are we really at the beginning of what might become a war? i said i have no clue. if you want to send me there i would be delighted to go. i went over there for the -- floating around in that part of the world and doing a documentary, and i thought myself that it was quite extraordinary what one was seeing in germany especially. and i would like to ask and perhaps, i could start with rick, and ask him to anxious -- answer a simple question as you lay the groundwork here. were we really dealing with a serious strategic threat from the soviet soviet union at that

time? >> well, that's a great question. i think if you look at the deployment you were talking about, the ss20s, and the western military districts of the soviet union in a broader context, in terms of abroad, modernization and buildup of russian nuclear forces, marvin, i think it was not only viewed adds a threat militarily, but it was also viewed in the word we used to use at that time, it was also you viewed as a political threat in terms decoupling the security of the united states from the european allies. and this decoupling concept actually originated in jiewrp in the 1970s. and it's interesting and important to go back and look at the origin of the whole issue

back to really the german government, the chancellor who in the late '70s started pointing to the russian deployment of the ss20 as potentially threatening solidarity of the alliance and the concept that sort of every piece of real estate in nato europe as well as canada and the united states was the same, and that we needed to be able to protect and deter russian political pressure and military force against any nato allies. and the carter administration having reversed the decision on famous neutron bomb deployment really raddled the europeans, but especially the schmidt government. and so you have to really view, i think, the early steps taken to what became the double tract

decision, deployment of cruise missiles and -- and as a reaction to those uncertainties in that period now it's interesting the raggen administration inherited the nato double tract decision. it wasn't prepared to think through the consequences of that. ..

so that we don't have to deploy those missiles. and there was the retail of resistance at the pentagon and the white house and elsewhere about getting into any new arms control the negotiation. canada i can have run against you. carter had arms treaty that didn't support. the secretary al haig recognized in order to preserve the option of responding, we needed to get this negotiation. the problem was once haig finally stimulated in 1981 a discussion with the president

within the national security council about getting back to negotiations and what her position was, cap weinberger was successful in getting the president to adopt the phoenix zero, which all of us in the state department was just not credible to allies. they think they two or three ss 20s deployed or under the climate. each one really 800 or 900 warheads directed against europe. our systems were just on the road. we were going to because of the silly aster sows, we can go to the russians and nasa to dismantle their systems so we don't have to deploy. sure enough -- immediately we were proven wrong. the peace movement in europe

initially endorsed the idea that the zero option is a great idea, but then the reality sunk in that we didn't have the very strong negotiating position. what our job was in the early 80s was to convince the europeans that the only way we could get an agreement was to go forward with the deployment plan and it was hard. and ross will talk in a few minutes that reagan's own attitude towards nuclear weapons and how that was manifested. but i honestly believe elusiveness to bomb germany 1983. reagan actually saw several hundred thousand germans vigorously fighting the german police and opposition to the deployment of those missiles that he really internalized sense of opposition, the sense

of concern about nuclear weapons. that coupled by the way some of you were the made for television movie the day after born-again president reagan watched this tv show about a town in the midwest gets nuked in kansas and the consequences after that nuclear attack. so this is our problem. just a couple of quick and it does not give the floor back to you, marvin. there were several points in this process will be almost swerved off the road. one of them was the famous walk in the woods dipole med sin. and ross will identify with this.

george shultz had been secretary of states for approximately a month and he came to the state department as someone well versed in economics and business. he wasn't somebody who paid attention to this strategic nuclear balance. he was coming into a lunch at them and what i come to the lunch. i went to lunch and paul then briefed secretary shall on his informal chat with the russian ambassador to convince key on their proposed arms control, which would have fled or were double deployment. would not have been this low steer about.

the big problem when i listen to this is the secret of our success in getting the missiles in was very close consultations with the ally. the fact that our ambassador had cut the steel without telling any and giving them a sense of ownership is very dangerous. the reason we didn't go off the road was the russians turn down that deal. they could start deployment in our charts. finally, just one other quick anecdote. we deploy those missiles in the fall of 1983 about a month after our crisis with the soviets shot down a korean airliner. there were strong calls to the white house for us to walk out of the negotiations in geneva to

punish the russians. had we done not, we would not have been able to preserve the alliance we needed to get deployment started. churchill successfully fought those efforts. it's an irony when we did deploy an attack the public relations in. >> it's been three last points. >> i know. one more. in 1985 victory here of no progress, that was the career pre-gorbachev when you had to drop off and basically oriented soviet leadership. george shultz sat down with rummy go unnoticed embrace who

they really launched the imf negotiation. nobody at that time foresaw the likelihood of the zero option. we are a moved off. producer lee schultz who outlined a new approach, which put arms control in this broader context, economic context, human rights discussions and regional security matters in the so-called balance agenda to really pave the way that the progress that was made. >> thank you very much. he mentioned the brain-dead soviet leadership at that time. what you all want to remember the 1980s krishna died and came in and he died. 1985 at the spring gorbachev cavemen and things radically

turned around and a great example can affect the flow of history. >> by spring of 1985, there were so many conflict in threads of thought and activity taking place but it's easy to set them aside. but you have to recall the discussion within the u.s. government to whether to do with the russians no matter who is in charge. there is difficulty in europe and the peace demonstrations in governments being asked to take on the question which they've successfully done but nevertheless pay the political price for it. i was in east germany at that time in the picture from their printed with the most favorable, was never the less said the united states, more determined on it were the posture and a peaceful posture. there is a great deal that had to be overcome.

it was successfully overcome in large part because of the dogged determination of george shultz working with president reagan. in 1985 district has suggested there's an agreement to get a geneva for someone meeting in geneva the question is how did you get there, what was your negotiation? in the summer of 85 through such events of the final act and convening as usual at the united nations general assembly in new york, the secretary shultz was able to engage in a relationship with foreign minister edward shepherd not shia, another new face for the united states. the march toward geneva included a discarding of the old notion of a page long issues about which we disagreed in which rebadged over with language which has always misinterpreted and the establishment of the acceptability of the so called for party agenda.

arms-control coming human rights and a birdie that the statement. human rights arms-control regional issues in bilateral issues. the essence of that, rick has touched on. in that we did not trade-off when u.s. interests. it's interesting how quickly people would say that the soviet union is something we don't like, let's make them pay with the u.s. interests instead of one of their own interests. so they got away from that with the new negotiating approach and iterate gradually we arrived with some sense of things one member of the triumvirate's, who said when we got to be in charge the cupboard was bare. the washington intelligence community were beheaded a different sense of the soviet leadership that we were requiring a signatory dialect and became difficult to get in

the intelligence item will be we are seeing across the table. but in geneva as president reagan and gorbachev the first time in the two of them that as leaders in front of their famous fireplace conversation and later walking along the lake, you begin to see the emergence for people to accept and believe in president reagan's view of the role of nuclear weapons and is very real distaste. but the key document that emerged from geneva to meet later at the key document at the very beginning msb wanted never be fought. the room negotiations for the start agreements in geneva for imf. but they began to take the lead from the outcome of the summit discussions. we were not able easily to get to the promised washington summit. we kept running into bilateral

issues. the case in which one of the correspondence was picked up. in moscow we have problems with so-called marine corps security breaches. moscow we had problems of people concerned about the new u.s. embassy was one great tuning fork for some intelligence listing. each became an obstacle to getting to the summit meeting were supposed to have been getting on with the arms-control agenda in a way negotiators could do something with. on the road to reykjavík there is a very real an interesting exchange of correspondence between gorbachev and reagan in which they began to trade ideas on how they might proceed on the start side to reduce weapons and on the ins that. right in the middle is very real soviet distaste and through strategic defense initiative.

i think not enough importance can be given to the role in both fostering and hindering the dialogue and worrying the alliance members who weren't sure whether this was going to make negotiations a joke, that the united states is not prepared to negotiate seriously. i've reykjavík we arrived in money spent on prepared. untrue to the united states team arrived with the largest audience of possible positions and responses to soviet positions he can possibly see. they are totally prepared. jack and i was a notetaker for one of the opening sessions there. their relationship having been fostered through the exchange by george shultz or sold to his many meetings.

it became clear the soviets had to be brought to understand the sdi was not going to be negotiated away. a geneva and one of the side stories he may as well heard about, the president had said to mr. gorbachev and we're using simultaneous set of sitting through the sessions and had to sit through 30 minutes of translation committees and were engaged across the table when president reagan and i will share it to the technology. gorbachev said with an outburst of laughter you money than share with us milking machine technology. we have never seen an exchange like that. these two men arrived in geneva in reykjavík with the dialogue in place and a respect for each

other, which was palpable and he believes that each could probably deliver on what they were talking about. very, very. everyone knows the top worked on sdi on that last day. but what was there for imf was the agreement that they would he 100 long-range ins missiles on each side. europe would be free of such missiles than 100 would be placed in soviet asia and for the united states to look as if our 100 missiles would be placed in alaska. with the target was hard to say. and the list would he 10100. gorbachev set off at that point around the circuit to try to use sdi as the obstacle to further progress and somehow get us to accept a different position. meanwhile, we had at reykjavík

on the telephone to make sure we got to our countries before the prescott to them, called each of the countries in their leadership where it was available sunday night in europe to inform them of the outcome in the imf talks in the 100 global in europe was greeted with total shock. it finally discovered the appear in the u.s. side as rick said and on the television in the united states and leader after leader after leader, general after general. former secretary of state went on television to talk about the dangerous decoupling is the ins decision. he knew what he was doing and george shultz and he worked very

closely on this. gorbachev failed in its effort to save sdi was the reason there could not be more agreement columnists, approach the united states in spring of 1987 to say it has to be global, nothing else. with respect to short-range missiles, which had not really been part of the discussion. we had not come not come a day at sun. they would agree to zero short-range missiles, which is an incredible announcement from the soviet side produced a 00 prospect in the spring of 1987. >> thank you very much. wonderful presentation. jack matlock, were you in moscow during this whole time? >> disappeared from 85 to 87? >> now, i was in washington and in reykjavík in geneva. >> working very much on the

reagan stuff. >> trying to figure out what the russians were up to. >> from your point of view as a russian expert, what was going on in the russian mind as all this is taking place? was the importance of the gorbachev as the soviet union? >> there are a number of very important questions out there. i think we understand in retrospect is usually much better than we understood at the time. one of the misperceptions i believe we had was that the deployment of the ss 20 had been calculated in advance to be a threat to europe and to decouple the alliance. now as for the back now, we find they have not staffed whatsoever. it is largely an amount of inertia of the military industrial complex. they would build them because

they could and the foreign ministry was not even consulted before their decision to deploy in the ss 20. we now know at least there was minority after the deployment that this was a strategic error of. because the same as a threat to western europe and god they would bring a reaction from the united states that would be threatening. now as we look back, one could argue for the soviet point of view that if they had these ins missiles and we had no missiles stationed in europe, this could be a military advantage. however, once the united states stations ins missiles in europe, suddenly they are better off with zero than they are with the

american vessels in europe. why? because if we abuse them in retaliation, we could hit the soviet union by missiles such as not originate on the american homeland. now would they then risk virtual annihilation by attacking the u.s.? no. you see, that was the reverse of what we would have faced if they had used the ins missiles to attack our allies in europe. we would be faced without the transfixed in europe to the intercontinental and in effect committing suicide. so, everything was reversed by the deployment and i think what rick has said is absolutely right. we had to deploy in order to show the soviets that the really juicy zero. now of course, in reykjavík we

were very close to a green and we a new integrated gorbachev hadn't put positions on 100 outside europe. whether we ever would have really a ploy but hundreds of alaska i doubt we would have had the right to. the problem for the russian point of view was gorbachev zero also wanted to improve relations in japan. with 100 ins missiles directed at them, how is he going to do that? is really not in their interest to have 100 vessels out of europe. it was really in their interest. now, we now have access to records of the bureau discussions. now let me go back to a couple words about president reagan. before he first met gorbachev, he wrote out on the yellow pad, several pages without any prompting from anyone what he

wanted to achieve at geneva in his first meeting. bud mcfarlane handed this to me as utterly as we were getting on the plane to go to geneva, saying this is what the president has on his mind. it is wrong somewhere, will have to street him out. actually, it is a very perceptive paper and among other things he pointed out that our biggest problems, one of these was the lack of trust, that he had to find a way to begin to create trust between us over not going to solve anything else. he also added, if i don't achieve anything out, i must convince gorbachev that we don't want an arms race. if he wants one come he's going to lose it. number three, whatever we achieve, we must not call it victory because that will simply make further improvements were difficult.

now, let's go past the reykjavík meeting. february 1997, porter shot is facing the bureau and is telling them, we have got to come to terms because these missiles are pointed right at our head. let's go to zero. they want zero. the defense minister said wait, how about the british and french missiles? they had wanted compensation. gorbachev in texas get real. for not going to have a war with rickman fan. are you talking about? and then he began to berate the defense ministry, said you have been lobbying our people, spending so much on defense you are scaring everybody else.

that has given them an excuse for arms race and i'll tell you if we let them get by with forcing us into an arms race, we're going to lose it. exactly what president reagan was trying to do tech tickly. i would say that, you know, people at the time, i know some of martin's colleagues would say well, reagan really did pay that much attention to details. his eyes would glaze over bb gun into numbers of missiles and warheads and stuff. and true, he didn't look at those things. he'd concentrate on the basic thing. how do i understand this other fellow? have i convinced him to descend and that's actually in his own interest because his current policies are not. so we spent much more time and i

think affect your time talking to reagan about for gorbachev is coming from. when his pressures were and of course one of the things that we needed to do was in this process to convince them to do then and. in other things he said in that same about the human rights is too important to carry it out. he said were much too upfront. after confronting publicly, no politician can back down. we've got to begin to handle this more privately. so he began to move off the shouting at each other, condemning each other, not that that stopped totally, but more and more putting it into a dialogue and a reasonable dialogue that included such things as these very affect

their tutorials by secretary of state shultz. in any event, the inf treaty was a big treat for both sides by the time we made it and i think it is a model and lucky not the sorts of issues in the future. i would qualify that i say and i think every issue, every country has unique aspects. you can't say simply because something worked in one situation is going to work in another. however, the idea that you have to get some understanding of the strategic relationship, which is not threatening in order to solve these problems of arms production is very true. it is not a matter as many people seem to think of just getting the right formula, such as walk in the woods so what not. it was rather a matter of going

back to basics. why are we doing this? when we both be better off if we could do something else? that's what we finally got a crop with ins and subsequently on a lot of other subjects. >> thank you very much. the three of you presented marvelous insight into what it is that is going on at bedtime, building up to the inf treaty. you've spent all three of your good bit of time talking about two personalities. we were dealing with two systems where the analysis often was that the system is governed the direction of policy. it is not the individual. yet you spend a great deal of time talking about two people, reagan and gorbachev. could we have had in the inf treaty at the end of the day if there was no gorbachev in the reagan? >> i think not. >> i think they were actually, i

want to go back and maybe it's my ur experience. i think there were three participants. there is reagan, corba child, all said the allied. that was a really critical aspect. without somebody who is prepared to tough out the deployment piece of this, without demonstrating the credibility in the u.s. administration, but also the alliance as a whole, you couldn't have got to treaty in my judgment. i think we underestimate the political defeat the russians experience with the deployment. they saw this as an opportunity to divide the alliance. they threatened in the early 80s and jackie will remember this, an ice age if nato went

forward with diplomacy. so i think the fact that she had the credibility of deployment, also this unique guy, gorbachev. but when you think about leadership before gorbachev, but also after to some degree. certainly if you look at today's leadership in the direction president putin is moving, he certainly wouldn't have been willing to gorbachev was to really take the risk gorbachev took. and finally, this is a critical point and i know you want to maybe talk about iran, whether there is a case study here. i'm not sure that the u.s. system, even with ronald reagan would have been willing to engage in this kind of diplomacy without the impact of the allies on our system because they had

to take the missiles. we had to be uniquely sensitive to their policies and there can in a way that we rarely are unimportant monster national security decisions. >> you immediately said no to my question. >> i think it took both of them. and rick has mentioned the allies. that's important. i would also mention george schultz and the foreign ministry. neither of them could've done it without that sort of support. but the fact is the united states needed someone with the confidence of the right wing to make a deal with the soviet union if any was going to be made is going to be politically defensible. it was that there was a democrat that thought this was a good idea. most of them probably did.

i will say for the democrats that they supported this every way as we were going towards the soviet union. >> not so much on the planet, jack. remember the nuclear freeze moment? >> i'm talking about when we got the treaties. and then, i would also say in the case of the soviet, none of gorbachev successors would've been capable of doing what he did to change soviet policy to understand the degree to which the predecessor's policies were not in the insurance. that took gorbachev and also to the very improbable soviet leader who would risk his own position in order to try to do what machiavelli said it's virtually impossible. that is to change the institutions in your country. he read great risks and ultimately he wasn't successful. he was successful in most of the

things that made a real difference to us. i don't know how this is going to happen. >> i do share that view. the big flashers and big man with the courage of an idea because of priests and on the time. marvin, but may end this chapter. this is an anniversary we haven't quite got to the eighth of december yet in our discussion. there's a broad outline, but there was another for many people in the sermon today that you're observing this anniversary with a lot of hard work in geneva to put an agreement together based on these broad.there were coming out of the discussions. i have often thought that match

of the progress is possible because of the decision and in stockholm and 85, 86 to say yes, they would agree to verification for on-site inspection, which they had never before agreed to, but didn't this case. >> so why do you think they did it this time? >> they again begin to measure -- >> could have been. they began to understand there is a reciprocal to on-site inspection. was not a one-way think they would have the opportunity to look at the western military and defense establishment. the quickly to the end of all of this as we had an agreement, there were stories along the way but if our colleagues today that together they would talk until midnight. but jack mentioned ss 20 because it was the thing to do and they could make it so they made it. there was a point where they sat

with aftermath to ask him how many of these things do you have? he said i don't know. i'm not in charge of making them were ordering them. they produce them. they give me the ones i want. i don't know how many they may come as i can't give you that number. i'm going to have to go back and count. when we came towards the very end of the first part of her, teams are coming in here and getting ready and even mr. kirchhoff, then head was in town and entertain them at my home one evening with some of the delegation to tell and human rights could not be forgotten as all of the headlines turned to arms control. everybody was gathering. we learned from the soviets that they did not have a picture of an ss 20. so finally they give us a picture and it was of a canister. what can we do at the picture of a canister? is that the missiles inside had

to guess. obviously that won't do. we need a picture of the ss 20 so the next morning are looking at the sixth of december. the next morning that a picture of the ss 20. finally, note soviet came that i was sure we have that behind in geneva in 1985 when they said at that time we cannot perceive what this joint statement because negotiators in moscow on it agreement are giving us a hard time. until you agree in a civil aviation agreement in moscow, we won't proceed in geneva. resent folks, fellas, we don't play that game anymore. we will not negotiate on that basis. we are leaving. we'll be back when you decide to negotiate seriously on the task in front of us. of course there's the famous exchange between schultz and gorbachev in may came back. this is my way of saying the very last item they marched in what was the u.s. inspectors

could only answer the democratic through berlin and we had spent 40 years saying that berlin was not the capital of the german republic and we read about the yield on that at the last minute. so the agreement was signed in nursing mothers side stories that don't need repeating. but the point in all of this was the united states in this negotiation, read dan, shoals, the whole team but agree this is a good thing to do in their civil population that does not think this is a good thing to do do what they wanted and they were prepared to walk away unless they got it. and the forgiveness of their resolve and determination to see it through and take the risk of saying no, we will not proceed on that basis. yes we will proceed on another basis i think were as important as the very real personalities. >> thank you very much, ros.

a question for jack. in your city at the end of the soviet period, what role did the imf negotiation, the whole process play as the soviet union teetered towards an end? >> i am not sure it helps that much direct effect. i would say ending the arms race because this is the beginning of ending the arms race. they really took the s.t.a.r.t. treaty and a series of others to do so. and it took to liberation of eastern europe, which went as a separate process. but i would say that these things actually freed of gorbachev to try to reform the system. it took pressure off him. but once we had the arms race, they had skus not for changing

the system. but what sealand the cold war, not just the arms race and gorbachev ended ideologically, december 7 company to mediate, today is also the anniversary of that. a year after he signed the inf treaty, when he and he did not speech, aside from announcing unilateral reduction in their military was he discarded the class struggle as the rationale for soviet foreign policy. not that was the rationale that also kept the communist party is the dictatorship in the country. so the end of the cold war permitted these reforms when they got out of hand at the end of the soviet union. they got out of hand, out of control in the end of the soviet union in my opinion was caused

almost entirely internal forces. these were unleashed by the end of the cold war, beginning with the inf treaty. >> you share that view? >> i do. there's two ways we haven't used throughout this ever so popular at the time with respect to understand that gorbachev was trying to do. he was running -- he was attempting to change in the soviet union internally, engage with all of us. talking about forces out of control, that's a lot of going on at the same time it is in many respects a wonder he held on for as long as he did. >> brick, your tape or do you mentioned the russian made a fundamental mistake when they moved their 20s than -- ss 27. was there any mistake quite >> on the management of this issue, we almost ran into a

couple. are we kept it on the road. i have to say because i think about the last 20 years from the 30 years u.s. foreign policy in the last 10 years. i do call it the disciplining impact of working within the alliance. we were genuinely because this wasn't a landslide for, both the negotiating side because in order to delay, governments in question had to take ownership for the situation. it was going to be sitting at the negotiating table, but there is a consultant group that nato and they made people go back in the governments in question to say what part of this process. trust us. we won't let those americans do some crazy egg. i have to tell you there were so

many people in the reagan administration that were unhappy hearing the state department arguments over and over again. we can't do that because sola disruptor deployment efforts. so somebody had some wacky new neutron on a wonder to deploy or something like this, we could go to the president and tell him, and he's going to make inf deployment and arms control efforts that much more difficult. most foreign policy issues that washington has to address, that any administration has to address, the allies are taken into account, but not same way they were in this whole inf process. >> go ahead. before you go, if you all have some question, this is your moment in the sun. just raise your hand and i'll try to recognize you. >> rick used a phrase taken to

kronk. many people understand that's a subtle brushoff. in the case of the allies, these are very strong leaders and they insisted on their views not even taken into account, but a part of what we were doing. >> hand if you have a question. [inaudible conversations] >> anyone who has questions, please raise your hand. >> break here, ray. >> please give your name if you would, please. >> thanks to roxanne ridgway of this years ago, thank you. big men write history. is there any hope today that we still have people, men or women

on the scene who can write from history? because we've got a lot of problems. someone mentioned herein, iraq, afghanistan. you've got these things out there with no exit. >> thank you. >> i think we will when we need them. we have not given credit to history bring in an issue to a point where it's ready to be resolved. you cannot march in and be a big person to bring all this together and solve it. there is a ripening of an issue in the readiness of people to talk more than one person to talk about it. >> i would have to say there's a ripening of the issue of iran, which has been ripening for years now and very many presidential statement that have been made about a determination on the part of the u.s. never to allow iran to develop nuclear

weapons. during the presidential campaign, we heard that from both candidates. so it is very less than that we have picked up from the inf negotiations that could be applied today as we look ahead to the iran negotiations? rick, you can start and then jack. >> from one perspective you can say yes, that there is a kind of dual track. some people would say there's more than two tracks here. the situation in play with iran now is similar in the sense that she's got a sanctioned policy that is putting every pressure on the iranian regime in the same way the threat of the u.s. deployment of missiles and pershing did. so there is an incentive the iranians have to seek a solution that in the absence of the

sanctions wouldn't exist. on the other hand you have the diplomatic track. what's missing here i think is it is arguable how active the diplomatic track is actually done. i am struck by, for instance, the fact that the europeans who'd been involved in this process all about is of course the p5 plus one i think have largely let the timing and the pace beset by the united states. it is going to be a think the obama administration's call, especially with the external pressure the israelis constantly hovering out there and that yahoo!'s talk about a red line is when is the united states going to get really serious about the second track? i am one of these people who believes there is an agreement out there that can be reached

that would lead to a nonnuclear weapon iran. but i think the diplomacy has to be set. jack's final point about a republican conservative able to achieve agreements of this sort that are more difficult for a democrat is a very important one. no matter what kind of agreement, if there is an agreement reached with iran, it's going to be attacked by a lot of constituencies. but many of them are going to be republican. >> and he gave you many examples were a democratic president has reached major agreements. jack. >> regarding iran, i think in any situation you have windows of opportunity possibly. there are other times with the

personalities make it simply impossible. we should not have negotiated. it wouldn't have helped in the 1930s. but the thing is as far as iran is to turn, i think that there are lessons and one is at the time to with iran was when they had a relatively moderate government in 2003 before we attacked iraq. 90 do them a great favor by taking out their main enemy without apparently any negotiation whatsoever. now i think we could have made a very useful deal with iran after 9/11. after all, al qaeda is their enemy. iraq was their enemy. we have a lot of things in common than. so the time is 2003.

now with ahmadinejad dare come with all of the things, the history, i don't think that it is going to be that easy, particularly to the public negotiations given the political stance that both have made. but the basic principle is we should have been looking for strategic dialogue with iran and i would even go back to the 90s and i think that was also a mistake of the clinton administration when they had the double containment, which i never thought made much sense. but the fact is that both parties have taken positions that have made it extremely difficult now to achieve my negotiation. however, rick is right.

in my opinion, there is a solution out there, but we have an effect locked ourselves in and they locked themselves in politically anyway that's going to make it very difficult. >> lets hope you are both right about this working solution that's out there somewhere. >> my name is james wilson. i work in the historians up some foreign relations united states series. with my colleague, elizabeth charles, we're putting together volumes of primary documents on the soviet union and arms control in the 80s. we looked through a number of the old office files, whatever people are missing. it's a great historical interest to us. my quick question is in january 1989, inuit frustration comes in and there's a number of people who had been played a role in 87, 88 and yet there seems to be a real change in attitude towards the soviet

union and vicious than a lingering mystery to some of us looking at this. >> i was there. >> you want to answer that? >> in fact you are right because i am the bush administration negotiated to start one treaty. there was a lot of people kind of befuddled by the fact that the new group and the white house, and it was the white house group and very good people like >> translator: craft an army camp were taking a very skype to call approach to the russians. there was a view and i think god bless him, brent scowcroft really believe this was stolen in love with this process of

gorbachev that they were kind of clear minded enough about the russians. bob gates also who had moved over your tuesday at the national security phaser. that kind is first six months because people at state were ready to progress with what had been achieved at the end of the second reagan illustration. but it just really delete things. the person who turned that around and he also deserves a great deal of credit which baker. jim baker did a great job putting together an interagency management of this process and the different players and spent a good deal of time for a year and half for two years for the in moscow with the entourage,

with the negotiations. from the start, jim woolsey, the relevant assistant secretaries broken into working groups and continued the process with chevron i see a gorbachev. but there was a delay. i don't think it set us back. i don't think there are any problems as a result of that. >> i'm going to say that james baker was named secretary of state the day after george bush was elected. within a week he met with regional assistant secretary to understand their priorities. it's only my priorities for the opportunity challenges to his soviet union. i'm on record as having said and i'll say it again, don't you really believe, don't you

believe you've gone too far? i said no i do not have that. we arrested you interagency studies. we turned it one that continued the same path. we were sort of laughed out of town. i think we lost two years. >> on this point, let me just say that i think we lost our momentum during the reagan administration. >> thank you. >> you have a microphone up front. >> okay, right here, please. [inaudible] i just wanted to marvin you heard me say this wanted this would repeat. one of the lessons that really relate to iran is don't be

afraid to negotiate. we arguably have no choice without an arms-control track because the soviets didn't know that lesson. they put themselves in a corner to call back. i think jack and all of the mentioned there might then opportunity because we tangled ourselves up in the conditions before we would negotiate the iranians than what was going to be the effect of negotiating. the question is whether left to ourselves and ins, we would not have engaged at the beginning of the reagan administration there was a desire on the part of the

new administration without the arms-control. it was only the uproar from the allies that really work in the opposite direction. >> thank you very much. question in the back. yes, please. thank you very much. >> imed dan whitman. >> if you could stand up, please. >> let me know if this is off-topic, but since we've been talking about lessons learned, i believe there is a list he needed in the last couple of days in dublin that russians and americans met with somebody if not laparoscopy with somebody. is it possible some day may be happening in terms of russian policy toward syria? as we mentioned iran, to make it as far away syria? >> you can get a faraway scenery with some connection to imf.

>> i do appreciate that. the question of syria isn't totally sufficient importance that we could address that. thank you for the question. i have that feeling, i don't know what you guys need here, but the russians have been, for the last several weeks, there have been indications of unhappiness with what is going on in serious without a clear sense of what it is they can contribute them whether they can do it on their own or with the u.s. the u.s. is always one of the russians to be part of that kind of a solution if there be one at all. so if the russians in any way all. so if the russians in any way are moving towards the american position with respect area, i think we are all better off for it. [inaudible] >> another question here.

>> good. there's one right appear. i will assume that's the last question. very much. >> you you-all hinted undiluted. i wonder if you recall the diplomacy mentioned of movement towards inf negotiation. >> i remember it very well and i think it was sort of the anti-public diplomacy. now with respect to the allies, which is touched on. the practice meeting a meeting by meeting with the soviet leadership was a complete shutdown on comment to the press until the meeting was over. >> amen. >> that was one if i may say of the great boo-boos that she wanted at that time because he might've had great relations with the allies, but she didn't let the american public.

>> i don't know about the american public. >> the american public was ill-informed about what it is the u.s. government was trying to do at that time. there is a huge uproar. if you listen very carefully, it was the sense i had anyway that the government did not notice that he would've wanted to do. he was confused without a clear sense of direction. maybe you all had a clear sense of direction. >> we had a clear sense of we told you. you just didn't believe it. at geneva i sat down with a group of thinkers. you are not one of them. one of them asked, you know, we didn't know this was coming. and i said the president made his speech january 16, 1984. this is more than a year and a half before. most of your people said he was playing politics. he set forth in that speech what he wanted to do.

i think we were very open. it was simply the press was extraordinarily -- i would say skip the call that the president knew what he was doing. there's another side to public pharmacy. and how about the soviet union? ros has mentioned the important agreement at geneva that a nuclear war cannot be won and must not be fought. there is also an extremely agreement to expand exchanges of all sort. we have had an exchange agreement from the nixon administration, which had lapsed during the carter administration because of the invasion of an interest in, whether we should cut off our exchanges over that i never understood. we got it restored, much expanded and the question was than what gorbachev allow that